Re: Ray Martinez

On Jun 6, 10:47 am, halfs...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 12:28:08 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez





<pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 3, 7:14 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:c135c18e-9eaa-46e9-99c3-7bfbecb22bc9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Jun 2, 4:01 am, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com> wrote:

snip

You really don't understand how science works, do you? The argument is
from data ("because you can go out and see it for yourself"). You are
also misusing the logical fallacy of Argument from Authority, which
describes reliance on statements of experts on matters beyond their
field of expertise (e.g., an advanced degree in, say, Educational
Psychology does not qualify one to make authoritative statements about
etymology or archaeology).

Yes it does. If they are making such statements then their higher
degree makes them qualified.

My father was, in his younger days, a journeyman sheet metal worker
and considered by his peers to be quite good at it.  Now it seems you
are telling me that someone with a PhD in Irish Literature is
qualified to speak with my father about his craft on an equal basis.
Could you please confirm this. He might get a kick out of it.





No, having a "higher degree" doesn't make them any more qualfied to speak
about an unrelated subject.

Yes it does. A doctorate qualifies said person to speak on any subject
that he cares to speak. I have listed two examples of well known
evolutionists.

You do not understand what "Argument from Authority" (AFA) is.

Yet he's correct, and you get it wrong.

If that were true then Richard Dawkins cannot speak about genetics or
Daniel Dennett about evolution in general.

Because Dawkins and Dennet have studied genetics and evolution, why not?

Here we see how implacable and red-faced Dana Tweedy is.

He asks "why not?" as if I disagreed. I agreed they were qualified.
Dana has made a bad error but we know he will not admit. Of course the
error was intentional showing that he is implacable. This is why I
largely ignore Dana these days. He exists in a state of defeat,
reduced to posting deliberately implacable comments.

Neither have degrees in
these fields but both are eminently qualified to speak authoritatively
in these fields.

But they have *STUDIED* those fields, even if their academic degree is in
another field.

That is what I said a little differently.

I could provide even better examples but will cease
for now. AFA is when a fact is challenged and the only defense is
someones credentials.

Again, credentials mean very little, when the person is speaking about a
subject he or she is unqualified to speak.

I might add: evolutionists in general have no idea what AFA is. You
are not being singled out.

You are wrong yet again.   You are the one who is wrong about argument from
authority, and it shows.

I also might add: Daniel Dennett is the brightest evolutionary scholar
in the world (in my opinion).

And your opinion means what?

Apparently a lot to you since you make a reply to every post I make -
replies that show an implacable person.

When Gould was alive he held that title
(in my opinion with Ernst Mayr coming in as a close second).

Again, Ray, your opinion is worth.... well.. nothing.

On the other hand, an appeal to authority is
perfectly valid when the authority in question knows what they are
talking about - for example, John Harshman knows a hell of a lot more
than you or I about the evolution of ducks, so it is perfectly valid to
take advantage of his lifetime of study in the field if we were
discussing ducks.

I agree.

John is also (in my opinion) qualified to speak about genetics, human
evolution, and the history of Darwinism.

Again, your opinion is worthless.

Implacable.

It is absurd to say otherwise - a mockery of our system to establish
facts. In the old days if you were the Pastor of a Church you were the
biggest and smartest man in town - qualified to speak about
everything.

Which would be wrong then, as it is now.    My father was a pastor of
several churches, and as intelligent, and wise as he was, he was not the
"biggest and smartest man in town".     He was wise enough to know what he
didn't know about.

Then he wasn't a real Gift Minister, but a Fundamentalist hireling.

I happen to know a bit about geology and stream
systems.

Okay.

Which you will ignore soon.

snipping more things Ray avoids...

DJT

Glad my one response to every ten Dana makes to my posts is over. I
thoroughly hated the experience.

Ray

PS to Steven J: in case you read this post tell me, is Dana
implacable? (Of course my question is rhetorical.) I just want to see
if you have an objective bone in your body. Of course I doubt that you
even know what "objective" means?

I also acknowledge that I owe you 5 or 6 replies. I have not made
these replies because they take longer to produce than the rash of
replies that I have made lately. But I will - ASAP.

RM- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, you have misunderstood, probably caused by myself explaining
things rather badly. If a person has a doctorate or Ph.D. and they
present themself on another subject outside their degree then they are
saying that the presentation is at least equal or more likely better
than any peer who has a degree in the subject. Said presentation or
work deserves to be judged on its content and cannot be dismissed
because of credentials. I can give many examples.

Ray

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ray Martinez
    ... Psychology does not qualify one to make authoritative statements about ... that he cares to speak. ... certainly does not entitle him to standing as an authority on those ... (in my opinion with Ernst Mayr coming in as a close second). ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ray Martinez
    ... having a "higher degree" doesn't make them any more qualfied to speak ... You do not understand what "Argument from Authority" is. ... Because Dawkins and Dennet have studied genetics and evolution, ... in the world (in my opinion). ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ray Martinez
    ... Psychology does not qualify one to make authoritative statements about ... having a "higher degree" doesn't make them any more qualfied to speak ... Here we see how implacable and red-faced Dana Tweedy is. ... authority, and it shows. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ray Martinez
    ... Psychology does not qualify one to make authoritative statements about ... having a "higher degree" doesn't make them any more qualfied to speak ... Here we see how implacable and red-faced Dana Tweedy is. ... authority, and it shows. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ray Martinez
    ... having a "higher degree" doesn't make them any more qualfied to speak ... not qualify anyone to speak on unrelated matters. ... Because Dawkins and Dennet have studied genetics and evolution, ... Exactly what do I have to be "red faced" about, Ray? ...
    (talk.origins)